Tapia, LaLone and Kim. Run Amok: Group Crowd Participation Run Amok: Group Crowd Participation in Identifying the Bomb and Bomber from the Boston Marathon Bombing Andrea H. Tapia Nicolas LaLone Hyun-Woo Kim Penn State University Penn State University Penn State University [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT In this paper we tell a version of the story of the bombing of the Boston Marathon. At first, two online groups gathered images, video and textual information concerning the bombing of the Boston Marathon and shared these with the FBI and amongst themselves. Secondly, these groups then created mechanisms to conduct their own investigation into the identities of the perpetrators. Finally, the larger national media followed the results of these online group investigations and reported these as fact to a national audience. We choose Twitter as our data repository and conducted quantitative analyses of tweets sent during the Boston Bombing. The implications for not incorporating public crowd participation within the standard operating procedures of emergency services may result in either a loss of public confidence in the slow-moving nature of official response to uncontrollable, dangerous and irresponsible public and media participation that exacerbates the negative effects of any disaster. Keywords Boston Marathon Bombing. Crowdsourcing. Twitter. First Responders. Ethical Participation. Social Responsibility INTRODUCTION In this paper we present the case of the bombing of the Boston Marathon in April 2013 examining three roles; (1) official emergency responders and policing, (2) groups of online social media bystanders, and (3) the wider media. We examine these roles using data gathered from the media traces left behind by “virtual bystanders” to the event. The lens we apply to this examination is the concept of ethical participation and social responsibility of bystanders engaged with official emergency response. Social media have allowed an unprecedented level of participation in emergency response and crime scene investigation. It facilitates the capturing and sharing of information, videos, and photos between officials, bystanders and interested parties. The implications for not solving the problem of unprecedented access quickly and responsibly by and incorporating public crowd participation within the standard operating procedures of emergency services may result in either a loss of public confidence in the slow-moving nature of official response to uncontrollable and dangerous and irresponsible public participation that exacerbates the negative effects of any disaster. Much has been made about the potential value of bystander data contributions via social media to police and emergency responders (Palen, 2008; Starbird, 2010). What is missing or under-reported in this discussion are four important elements: (1) policing and responders as requestors, (2) groups as participants, (3) media as truth mediators and (4) social responsibility. First, we find missing the role of responders requesting information from the crowd directly and providing a means for direct participation in the investigation. Second, we are just beginning to understand the second wave of contributions, those not made by immediate bystanders, but by organized groups of online participants who analyze the data produced by the original bystanders, and offer the products of their collective analysis to the responders. Thirdly, we note the powerful role the traditional national and international media have adopted for themselves as arbiters of truth as they filter the products of these online discussions and feed the results to the national stage. Lastly, this online discussion, intervention, and action have had significant real-world implications that demand socially responsible, careful, considered action for future emergency responders. The participants, both bystander and media, are participating in a policing investigation without the same training, constraints or awareness as officials have; however, despite that lack of training, these participants perhaps have more power and reach than official responders can obtain. The exemplar for these considerations comes from the immediate aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing. One group of ‘virtual bystanders,’ or those who observe an event via social media, collected and organized relief Proceedings of the 11th International ISCRAM Conference – University Park, Pennsylvania, USA, May 2014 S.R. Hiltz, M.S. Pfaff, L. Plotnick, and P.C. Shih, eds. 265 Tapia, LaLone and Kim. Run Amok: Group Crowd Participation for victims (Anonymous) while another group collected photos and videos taken of the scene (Reddit). Both groups created online mechanisms for the organization of survivors and analysis of images collected for anyone with a way to access the Internet. Reddit is well known as a popular news aggregator and Internet community. Anonymous is a loosely associated international network of hacker activists (or “hacktivists”) originating within the online community 4chan. This group is well known for their disruptive capabilities and are mostly associated with “the trickster” trope in literature (Mimi, 2012). Both online groups collected data and images offered by bystanders present or near the area around the bombing (Stableford, 2013; Abad-Santos, 2013). Both groups created online mechanisms to share and analyze the data collected. Both groups used their large numbers and the affordances of the Internet to produce an answer to ‘who was the perpetrator and what kind of bomb was used?’. Similarly, after the bombs went off, the FBI called for crowd participation to assist in the analysis of the deluge of data that poured in via help lines and social media directly (McCullagh, 2013, Marx, 2013). Here is where we see the filtering role of the media play a part in how the police responded to the data and answers provided. In the case of Reddit, before the bombing, the group was respected – yet it reproduced and vilified the name of the wrong perpetrator with help from other media after a name was overheard on the police scanner. In the case of Reddit, the police followed up nearly immediately. In the case of Anonymous, the group was seen as dangerous and perhaps criminal--yet it worked to identify the backpack, bomb and perpetrators (Marx 2013). In the case of Anonymous, which may have supplied correct information, the police did not follow up due to the inability to assure provenance, legitimacy, and accuracy of the data. This group of citizens was not trustworthy in the public sphere (Mansfield-Divine, 2013). In the remainder of this paper we will present a short summary of the events surrounding the bombing of the Boston Marathon and the surrounding investigation. We present a short review of literatures concerning the role of social media and crowdsourcing in emergency response and of bystanders in policing investigations. CONTEXT: THE BOSTON BOMBING AND CROWDSOURCING TRENDS On Monday, April 15, 2013, at 2:49 pm, the Boston Marathon was abruptly terminated when two bombs exploded 210 yards (190 m) from the finish line. These bombs killed three people and injured an estimated 264 others (Kotz, 2013). At least 14 people required amputations with some suffering traumatic amputations as a direct result of the blasts. Police, following emergency plans, diverted the remaining runners away from the finish line to Boston Common and Kenmore Square (LaGrone, 2013). The Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency suggested people trying to contact those in the vicinity use text messaging, instead of voice calls, because of crowded cellphone lines. Cellphone service in Boston was congested but remained in operation, despite some local media reports stating that cell service was shut down to prevent cell phones from being used as detonators (Waldman, 2013). Within hours of the initial event, the FBI called for bystanders to share images and video of the event (McCullagh, 2013). Images came pouring in and within three days the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) released photographs and surveillance video of two suspects, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. It was unprecedented but also predictable that the FBI decided to crowdsource parts of its investigation into the Boston Marathon Bombings (McCullugh, 2013). It was predictable because the technology available to the public allows it to be used in conjunction with existing forms of crowd-based help. The idea of the police seeking help from the public during an investigation is by no means new. The earliest examples of public help are through police wanted posters. These wanted posters lead to crime tip lines as telephones became more readily available followed by television-lead call-in shows such as America’s Most Wanted. Traditional tip lines call for the public to provide help regarding the identification of an individual based on a description or image, or to help identify elements of a crime. In the spirit of a new type of tip line, the FBI initially asked bystanders to contribute photographs and videos of the marathon in order to find better images of the suspects (McCullagh, 2013). This hybrid tip line and data repository worked well – thousands of photographs and short video clips were submitted to authorities. The practice of average citizens reporting on activities “on-the-ground” during a disaster is seen as increasingly valuable (Palen & Vieweg, 2008; Palen, et. al., 2009; Terpstra, 2012; Vieweg, et. al., 2008). With the